2021 Spring

Model Predictive Control for Path Tracking of

Autonomous Vehicle

2021.7.06

Bilal Sadiq
Department of Robotics Engineering
Daegu Gyeongbuk Institute of Science and Technology (DGIST)

Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 1

Today’s Presentation Agenda

1. Constraints and Optimization

2. Comparison and Simulations

Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 2

1. Modified the Constraint on Control signal

Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 3

Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 4
Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 5
1. Constraint and Optimization

1. Constraints
 Imposes some restrictions on the model
 In Model predictive control System ,usually three types of constraints

  constraint on the Control variable



constraint on the rate of change of control variable

 Constraint on the amplitude of the output

 Formulation of Constraint in MPC Terminology

 To apply the “ Inequallity constraints” to a system for quadratic programming they
should be property assemble as shown in next slide

Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 6

1. Constraint and Optimization
1.C Constraints
 Formulation of Constraint in MPC Terminology
 A general form of representation is
𝑀
  Χ≤𝛾
 So,the above inequality can be written as
 

 − 𝐼 − Δ 𝑈 𝑚𝑖𝑛
[𝐼] ∆𝑈 ≤
Δ𝑈[ 𝑚 𝑎𝑥 ]
  Formulation of Constraint in MPC Terminology for Optimal
dU=quadprog(H,G,[],[],[],[],[],[],[],options)

Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 7

2. Comparison and Simulations

 The path under study is the double lane change maneuvering

Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 8

2. Comparison and Simulations
2.a Early Results
 𝑟 𝑤 =0 𝑁 𝑝 =30 𝑁 𝑐 =5

Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 9

2.Simulation Results
2.a New Results
I. Unconstrained with the following MPC Architecture 𝑥  ( 𝑘 }=[ Δ 𝑥 ( 𝑘 ) 𝑦 ( 𝑘 ) ] ′
𝑇 −1 𝑇
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙 𝐼𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡  
∆ 𝑈 = ( Φ Φ+ 𝑅 ) Φ (𝑅𝑠 − 𝐹 ∗ 𝑥 ( 𝑘 𝑖 )
)
 
𝑇𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔
  𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒
A.
i.  = 0.005
ii. = 15  No Change at all in the responses
iii. =10
iv. =0.05

B.
i.  = 5  Significant Changes Occurs (Results on the next slides)
ii. = 15
iii. =10
iv. =0.05

Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 10

2.Simulation Results
2.a New Results
I. Unconstrained

 Highly dependent on the control Weight

rather than the MPC parameters.
 Deterioration occurs in the response

Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 11

2.Simulation Results
 Δ 𝛿
II. Constrained with Same MPC Architecture ≤ Δ 𝛿 𝑓 ≤ Δ 𝛿 𝑓 ,𝑚𝑎𝑥 
𝑓 ,𝑚𝑖𝑛 -
 𝛿 𝑓 , 𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≤ 𝛿 𝑓 ≤ 𝛿 𝑓 , 𝑚𝑎𝑥   -
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙
  𝐼𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 dU=quadprog(H,G,[],[],[],[],[],[],[],options)
𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒
 
R= 1
i. = 15
ii. =10
iii. =0.05

Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 12

2.Simulation Results
II. Constrained with Same MPC Architecture

 
R= 10
i. = 15
ii. =10
iii. =0.05

Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 13

2.Simulation Results
II. Constrained with Same MPC Architecture

 
R= 2e3
i. = 15
ii. =5
iii. =0.05

Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 14

2.Simulation Results

 To claim that our results are “somehow”

close to what we are expecting

Reference
Path Tracking of Autonomous Adaptive Mode
predictive control by Fen Lin et.al

Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 15

3. Conclusion

IN Next Meeting

 The focus will be on adding the Road Coefficient Friction as Constraint which is one of
the most import and physical phenomena for a practical implementation .

 Try to smoothen the responses further.

Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 16

Thank you

Bilal Sadiq – bilalsadiq@dgist.ac.kr 17